INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
OBLIGATIONS OF STATES IN RESPECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE
ADVISORY PROCEEDINGS
(REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION)
ANSWERS OF BARBADOS
20 December 2024
[INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE]
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
1
Response on behalf of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to the questions posed by
Judges Cleveland, Tladi, Aurescu and Charlesworth on Friday, 13 December 2024
Question put by Judge Cleveland: During these proceedings, a number of participants
have referred to the production of fossil fuels in the context of climate change, including
with respect to subsidies. In your view, what are the specific obligations under
international law of States within whose jurisdiction fossil fuels are produced to ensure
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
OBLIGATIONS OF STATES IN RESPECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE
(REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION)
WRITTEN REPLIES OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS
TO THE QUESTIONS PUT BY THE COURT
20 December 2024
1
1. On 13 December 2024, the Court’s Registrar transmitted to participants in the advisory
proceedings on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change the questions put by
Judges Cleveland, Tladi, Aurescu and Charlesworth. The Bahamas sets out below its written
replies to the questions put by Judges Cleveland, Tladi and Charlesworth.
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
OBLIGATIONS OF STATES IN RESPECT OF
CLIMATE CHANGE
RESPONSES OF ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA TO QUESTIONS POSED
BY JUDGES CLEVELAND, TLADI, AURESCU AND
CHARLESWORTH
20 DECEMBER 2024
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Question put by Judge Cleveland ............................................................................... 1
II. Question put by Judge Tladi ..................................................................................... 12
1
WRITTEN REPLY OF THE REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA TO THE QUESTIONS PUT BY JUDGES CLEVELAND, TLADI, AURESCU AND CHARLESWORTH
Question from Judge Cleveland
1.
Judge Cleveland put the following question to the participants at the end of the oral proceedings:
OBLIGATIONS OF STATES IN RESPECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE
(REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION)
THE AFRICAN UNION’S
ANSWERS TO THE
QUESTIONS FROM THE
COURT
20 December 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I – Preliminary remarks .................................................................................................... 3
II – The African Union’s Answers to the Questions ....................................................... 4
A. The First Question ................................................................................................................... 4
1
APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF
THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE IN THE GAZA STRIP (SOUTH AFRICA v. ISRAEL)
SOUTH AFRICA’S COMMENTS
ON THE REPLY BY ISRAEL TO THE QUESTION POSED BY JUDGE NOLTE AT THE END
OF THE ORAL HEARINGS HELD ON 17 AND 18 MAY 2024
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On 10 May 2024, South Africa sought the modification and indication of provisional measures
pursuant to Article 41 of the Statute of the Court, and Articles 75 and 76 of the Rules of the Court. The
1
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)
Response of the State of Israel to the question posed by Judge Nolte at the oral
hearing of 17 May 2024 on South Africa’s fourth request for provisional measures
18 May 2024
“Can Israel provide information about the existing humanitarian conditions in the
designated evacuation zones, in particular Al-Mawasi, and how it would ensure safe
DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC KEITH 1. I have two main reasons for agreeing with the rejection by the Court of Azerbaijan’s requested measures. 2. While it is the case that over 30 civilians in the areas recovered by Azerbaijan in the 44-day war have been killed and over 80 civilians injured, I am unable to see plausible evidence that these were the effects, let alone the purpose, of racially discriminatory acts in terms of Article 1 of CERD. By their very nature, landmines are indiscriminate in their effects. 3.
JOINT DECLARATION OF JUDGES CHARLESWORTH AND BRANT 1. We join the Court in rejecting Azerbaijan’s Request for provisional measures. Today (Order, para. 22), the Court recalls its reasoning in its Order of 7 December 2021. The Court had stated there that it “does not consider that CERD plausibly imposes any obligation on Armenia to take measures to enable Azerbaijan to undertake demining or to cease and desist from planting landmines”1 . Armenia relied on this sentence in the present proceedings to resist Azerbaijan’s Request. 2. This sentence catches the eye.